Increasingly, companies are leaving trade associations that have taken positions at odds with what science is telling us about human-induced global warming — that it's real and that we'd better address it sooner rather than later.

Then New Mexico-based PNM Resources announced it would let its membership in the Chamber expire over similar concerns. And in a statement, Nike expressed its discontent with the Chamber's obfuscating approach to climate change.

We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.

We strongly disagree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change legislation and particularly reject its recent theatrics calling for a 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to put the science of climate change on trial. We believe the science is compelling enough to act sooner rather than later, and we support comprehensive federal legislation to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect customers against unreasonable cost increases.

Nike fundamentally disagrees with the US Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change and is concerned and deeply disappointed with the US Chamber's recently filed petition challenging the EPA's administrative authority and action on this critically important issue.

Nike believes that climate change is an urgent issue affecting the world today and that businesses and their representative associations need to take an active role to invest in sustainable business practices and innovative solutions to address the issue. It is not a time for debate but instead a time for action and we believe the Chamber's recent petition sets back important work currently being undertaken by EPA on this issue.

The carbon-based free lunch is over. But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible.... Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”

In a letter earlier this year, Johnson & Johnson also expressed displeasure about the Chamber's tack, hinting that official Chamber views on climate issues were far more extreme than those held by its actual members. In an April letter [PDF], the pharmaceutical company said:

We recognize that Chamber members have varying perspectives on climate change legislation. We would appreciate if statements made by the chamber would reflect the full range of views, especially those of chamber members advocating for congressional action.

The long and the short of it is, preserving and protecting our economy and our environment for future generations is one of the top priorities of the U.S. Chamber. American business is the single largest investor and innovator in clean energy solutions and remains committed to propelling this nation to a prosperous and lower carbon future. We support sound policies that incentivize innovation and new business opportunities rather than the approach coming out of the House and the EPA which will strangle business with thousands of new regulation and stifle America's competitiveness.

The Chamber isn't the only industry association seeing desertions over the twin "regulation will kill business" and "climate change is a hoax" stances on climate issues.

In August, Bonner & Associates, a lobbying firm hired by ACCCE, was caught sending forged letters to members of the House. But the companies say that didn't play into their decision to leave ACCCE.

In early September, Duke spokesman Tom Williams explained the company's decision to the National Journal: "As the debate evolved, it became clear that there were some influential members who would never support climate legislation no matter what."